Goatse is not "marginally" NSFW

April 16, 2004 5:27 PM

Goatse is not "marginally" NSFW, even thumbnailed.
posted by mr_crash_davis to etiquette/policy at 5:27 PM (123 comments total)

I'll say
posted by matteo at 5:29 PM on April 16, 2004

yeah, fair call. nice joke, shame about the warning.
posted by triv at 5:30 PM on April 16, 2004

"thumbnailed obscenity"...

it says nsfw... it says thumbnailed obscenity. if you work somewhere where this might have the slightest chance of being a problem then why click the link to find out just how nsfw it really is?
posted by nthdegx at 5:33 PM on April 16, 2004

I'm not at work, nthdegx, I should have made that clear.

When I see "marginally NSFW", Goatse hardly fits the description. Goatse is Not Safe Ever.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:34 PM on April 16, 2004

Not that a goatse link is remotely cool, btw, but then that isn't the issue here.
posted by nthdegx at 5:35 PM on April 16, 2004

OK - if you're objecting to a goastse link then fine - I agree. I just think arguing about degrees of NSFW is a waste of time - it was flagged up in the first instance that there's room for doubt, so with that in mind I think anyone clicking the link has some responsibility.
posted by nthdegx at 5:37 PM on April 16, 2004

We're in agreement, then.

Only 17,332 to go.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:38 PM on April 16, 2004

Sorry, boss. Were you hoping for zero responses?
posted by nthdegx at 5:40 PM on April 16, 2004

are you unclear about the meaning of "obscenity"?
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 5:41 PM on April 16, 2004

'are you unclear about the meaning of "obscenity"?'

I know it when I see it, just like Potter Stewart.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:45 PM on April 16, 2004

here's a suggestion. if where you work is so strict and watching over your shoulder that they might see your monitor the moment you click on a link and see a tiny thumbnail then you probably shouldn't click on anything that has NSFW in the title of the post regardless of the "degree" of NSFW it might be.

seriously, you're making mountains out of mole hills. get a sense of humor and don't click on anything that has NSFW or your eyes might burn and you'll make baby jesus cry.
posted by suprfli at 5:47 PM on April 16, 2004

Here's a suggestion for you, suprfli. Read the whole thread, then post.

I'm not at work, my eyes aren't burning, and I have a sense of humor. It's been a fairly well-followed convention here that goatse and tubgirl and their ilk deserve more than a "marginally NSFW" warning when linked. It's my contention that that convention is worth continuing.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:51 PM on April 16, 2004

I agree with mr_crash_davis. That link was more than "marginally" NSFW, and I would have greatly appreciated some warning. The convention is very much worth continuing.
posted by gd779 at 5:54 PM on April 16, 2004

you clicked a link marked 'obscenity' ("Something that is offensive or repulsive to the senses" link). Were you expecting something not obscene?
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 5:55 PM on April 16, 2004

Were you expecting something not obscene?

Are you unable to see that "thumbnailed goatse" would have been a more effective warning?
posted by languagehat at 5:57 PM on April 16, 2004

It's not that the joke wasn't funny (it was). It's just that goatse and tubgirl and their ilk are so obscene as to require (by hopefully popular consensus) specific warning and identification.
posted by gd779 at 6:02 PM on April 16, 2004

Yes, it would also have compeltely killed the joke, such as it was...

say man, that link you labelled obscene turned out to be obscene! what gives?!
posted by nthdegx at 6:04 PM on April 16, 2004

languagehat - probably more effective, yes.

I wasn't trying to trick you all into looking at goatse. The crux of the joke was that ben affleck turned up.

Seriously, the image is 80x60 and even marked obscene, how are you people getting so holy?
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 6:05 PM on April 16, 2004

Tryptophan (and on preview nthdegx), the point I was attempting to make (and am either making badly or you are [both] intentionally being obtuse about it) is that "obscenity" has different meaning to different people, but goatse is fairly well-understood to mean one particular thing. Though they do in fact overlap, one is much more specific than the other, and out of respect to the community goatse deserves the more pointed warning.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:06 PM on April 16, 2004

While I accept that odscene means different things to different people, I think most people would agree that the obscene is often offensive. That someone chooses to click a link marked obscene and then complain about it to me is somewhat ludicrous.

I think if anything the problem is people are used to words being misused and watered down. If when people read obscene they think "not that obscene, actually".... whose fault is that?
posted by nthdegx at 6:11 PM on April 16, 2004

"If when people read obscene they think "not that obscene, actually".... whose fault is that?"

The person who posted that it was "marginally NSFW", perhaps?

I don't know about you, but in my world goatse is pretty far away from the margins of safe for work.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:13 PM on April 16, 2004

"marginally NSFW" = Might get you in trouble at work. Unless you you've got someone going through your cache, no one is going to see the 80x60 thumbnail on your screen.

....so you can't really claim that was misleading when the misunderstanding was on your part.

additionally (and this is the last time im going to point this out) it was clearly marked as obscene.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 6:23 PM on April 16, 2004

Well imo NSFW is a phrase much more open to debate. For instance, at my workplace this wouldn't be a problem, and, I would guess, not at Tryptophan-5ht's either. At some places of work I can see that this would be inappropriate, though. At places of work such as these I'd hope people would have the sense not to click links marked any degree of NSFW. I'd hope that people sensitive to these sorts of things would also be less inclined to click links labelled this way.

However, I do see that the "marginally" might have been somewhat misleading. If only there'd been some sort of modifier that gave a clearer idea of what was to be expected. Something like "thumb nailed obscenity", perhaps?

Wait a minute!
posted by nthdegx at 6:23 PM on April 16, 2004

what nthdegx said--it was labeled, and the word "obscenity" was used. Anyone who clicks gets what they get.
posted by amberglow at 6:25 PM on April 16, 2004

anyone that clicks?
posted by amberglow at 6:26 PM on April 16, 2004

the post should be changed to - "this is HIGHLY offensive and very NSFW. if you have no sense of humor and are incredibly sensitive don't click on this link. the pictured man's asshole may make you question your sexuality and this warning probably killed the joke."

wow. this is why i look at mefi maybe once a week. too many FPP police, few people w/a sense of humor and too many discussions in the post that have nothing to do w/the FPP...or Take it to MetaTalk!! too many people w/thousands of posts and comments...and no life. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
posted by suprfli at 6:27 PM on April 16, 2004

To my way of thinking:

NSFW == Boobies.

Goatse == "Really, don't click this."
posted by SPrintF at 6:29 PM on April 16, 2004

"marginally NSFW" = Might get you in trouble at work. Unless you you've got someone going through your cache, no one is going to see the 80x60 thumbnail on your screen.

Two problems here: work doesn't give a good goddamn what I look at (I once billed time for looking through pr0n sites trying to find a way to achieve an awful pop-up window effect requested by a client), so I'm using the NSFW distinction to let me know if something is going to make me puke. #2: most workplaces wouldn't catch you by looking over your shoulder but by seeing ".assraperobot." in their logs.
posted by yerfatma at 6:45 PM on April 16, 2004

Wikipedia entry on Goatse and related shock sites, if you don't know the backstory.
posted by quarantine at 6:45 PM on April 16, 2004

NSFW = Pretty fuckin obvious, I would dare to say.
posted by Keyser Soze at 6:47 PM on April 16, 2004

I'm here less to engage in a semantic argument about what NSfW means or doesnt mean than that a link to a goatse pic (even thumbnailed) on the metafilter front page is always innapropriate.

suprfli:wow. this is why i look at mefi maybe once a week...

Great. See ya next week!
posted by vacapinta at 6:53 PM on April 16, 2004

"........would have been a more effective warning?"

I think it would be much more effective to just assume a default "pull your head from your ass" policy. The post is very clear about what it contains. Geez people. Welcome to the Internet. If you really need this sort of hand-holding, you probably shouldn't be using the medium.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:53 PM on April 16, 2004

too many FPP police, few people w/a sense of humor and too many discussions in the post that have nothing to do w/the FPP

Never thought I'd see the day when crash was called a MeFi cop without a sense of humor. I'm sure I must have slipped into a parallel universe or something.
posted by anathema at 6:56 PM on April 16, 2004

How much clearer can it be? NSFW and "thumbnailed obscenity" make it pretty damn apparent that there may be, uh... a thumbnailed obscenity.

I didn't even notice the goatse guy until the MeFi police hauled it into Metatalk -- I thought he meant Ben Affleck. Seriously, if your workplace is so stringent that this would be a problem, wouldn't you say it's pretty stupid to click on the link.

It's absurd to argue semantics over the use of 'marginally' in light of the 'thumbnailed obscenity' part. Unless your working for the Dept. of Justice of the FCC it's unlikely a log reference to "2f254495.jpg" is going cause too many problems.
posted by cedar at 7:01 PM on April 16, 2004

I think it's amusing how overly sensitive people are to goatse and tubgirl.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:01 PM on April 16, 2004

The more of a commotion they make over Goatse and Tubgirl, the more you know theres something about it that excites them.
posted by Keyser Soze at 7:09 PM on April 16, 2004

Look, this about nothing more complicated that common courtesy and respect. A significant number of people strongly wish to avoid these sorts of shock sites, and are requesting that everyone label them explicitly in the future, just as we have done in the past. But then, as m_b points out, MetaFilter is not exactly known for its sensitivity, kindness, or tolerance anymore.

The more of a commotion they make over Goatse and Tubgirl, the more you know theres something about it that excites them.

Grow up.
posted by gd779 at 7:15 PM on April 16, 2004

"I think it's amusing how overly sensitive people are to goatse and tubgirl."

It's amusing that people might rather not see gaping anuses and defecating into one's own face?

Wow, that's...absurd.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:22 PM on April 16, 2004

QUEEN GERTRUDE [aside to Hamlet]: The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

KING CLAUDIUS: Grow up.

posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:28 PM on April 16, 2004

As long as we're going for the least common denominator:

SPRINGER GUEST: Talk to the hand.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:29 PM on April 16, 2004

SPRINGER AUDIENCE MEMBER: Oh no, he didn't!
posted by amberglow at 7:31 PM on April 16, 2004

*grin*

amberglow, if it wasn't illegal I'd ask you to marry me.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:32 PM on April 16, 2004

someone says "gaping asshole" and here we all are!!!
posted by quonsar at 7:34 PM on April 16, 2004

amberglow, if it wasn't illegal I'd ask you to marry me.
well, maybe someday...but goatse and q get to be the flowergirls.
posted by amberglow at 7:37 PM on April 16, 2004

ooh! ooh! mefi as bad daytime talk show! when do i get to show off my racist tattoo and hurl a chair at mathowie?
posted by caution live frogs at 7:38 PM on April 16, 2004

Goatse, fine. q is too far out.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:38 PM on April 16, 2004

mr_crash_davis: I agree wholeheartedly. I'm not a real big fan of gaping anuses myself (well, not usually at least, but there was that one night in Duluth when I was a drunk college kid, but I digress) but you gotta admit the picture is pretty small and there was a warning.

Really, when you click a link that described as containing "thumbnailed obscenity" it's hard to complain when that is exactly what it contains. Your making a big fuss over what is essentially a non-issue. If you (or anyone else) are concerned about having gaping anuses plastered to your retinas you might consider avoiding links labeled obscene.

You've made your point, you don't like the post. We get that. I'm sorry more people don't agree with you and I understand it's tough getting a mob together on a weekend, but you may want to consider the possibility, however remote, that you might be overreacting a bit.

gd779: What do you propose, a sliding scale along the lines of; A for a breast, B for full frontal, C for penetration and CXXX for goatse and tubgirl? Or maybe rather than stating it contains an obscene thumbnail and isn't safe for work, something more explicit -- along the lines of, "teeny tiny picture of some guy with a very large anus".
posted by cedar at 7:39 PM on April 16, 2004

ok, crash, but we only invite caution and cedar for the wedding itself, and not the reception. (q can be part of the band--the Gaping Anuses) ; >
posted by amberglow at 7:41 PM on April 16, 2004

"It's my contention that that convention is worth continuing."

And I'm here to contribute very little to the inevitable endless thread that goes nowhere when that convention is broken.
I like Pie!
posted by 2sheets at 7:42 PM on April 16, 2004

I see, so that's how it is. You only want the presents and want to deny me my champagne fountain bath? I'm a blast at wedding receptions, ask any of my ex's.
posted by cedar at 7:44 PM on April 16, 2004

After all this time, goatse and tubgirl are like old, ugly friends, whose craggy and pockmarked features may make some wince, but that you've come to love.

Or something.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:47 PM on April 16, 2004

well, cedar--it'll depend on how good the present is. And you'd have to share that champagne bath with tubgirl, you know.
posted by amberglow at 7:48 PM on April 16, 2004

I have to say that thus far I've been able to avoid the shock sites...and I'd like very much to continue avoiding the shock sites. That said, I'm not a prude...any number of mefi's can vouch for that....and I'm not surfing from a location where anyone but me sees the logs.

Semantically, I wouldn't expect a "marginally" nsfw site to have shock content. I'd expect boobs. Boobs are marginally nsfw. I'm glad I read the thread before clicking the links, and thus was able to avoid being surprised by shock content which I have no desire to see.

Because of the second link, I don't know if the first link is friendly...or if it automatically generates the images discussed in the second link...so I'll give it a miss, despite the fact that it sounds like a cute idea.

I agree with Crash...shock images have no place on the front page. And while the poster said that he had no intention of "tricking anyone" into seeing goatse...that is, in fact, exactly what the link was designed to do..."so that the joke wasn't ruined". I find that fairly inconsiderate.

I recogize that my opinion is in the minority here, and that it would seem that the vast majority of people would classify all obscenity together...be it boobs or scat...but I beg to differ, and suggest that it was the word "marginally" that caused the problem.
posted by dejah420 at 7:48 PM on April 16, 2004

dejah: "I recogize that my opinion is in the minority here, and that it would seem that the vast majority of people would classify all obscenity together...be it boobs or scat..."

That's exactly it. I know it's semantics, but to me (and it goes without saying we're all going to have our own take on this) goatse and tubgirl are obscene. Nudity and sexuality are not obscene in my eyes so when I see something described as 'obscene' I expect it to be somewhat beyond the usual NSFW site.
posted by cedar at 7:59 PM on April 16, 2004

cedar, point taken...and to be honest, in my world view, I don't consider boobs, or mostly things up to and including penetration to be obscene...but I'm also aware that I'm considerably more liberal than most when it comes to sexuality.

But I would argue, again semantically, that the general meme of "obscenity' has come to suggest things which are titillating, rather than things which are disgusting. (Despite the fact that repulsive is one of the dictionary definitions.) I would further argue that the qualifier of "marginally" drastically reduces the memetic weight of the term "obscene", and as such, I don't think that anyone clicking the link would have expected goatse. And thus, I think it's an inappropriate link for the front page.
posted by dejah420 at 8:17 PM on April 16, 2004

cedar, the problem is that even the description of things like Goatse may be considered obscene to some. Then you get the problem of overclassification which lumps everything from Janet Jackson to Tubgirl in the same generalized rubric of "NSFW."

In any event you end up pandering to the lowest common denominator, and overprotecting the public from the big bad boobie.

Goatse links should not be banned because they are obscene; they should be banned because it's bad netiquette. The Wikipedia page reflects this balance rather well; it appropriately realizes that "shock sites" are not pornography.
posted by PrinceValium at 8:18 PM on April 16, 2004

I think it's amusing how overly sensitive people are to goatse and tubgirl.

You're so cool they call you "cool-o."
posted by yerfatma at 8:21 PM on April 16, 2004

it goes without saying we're all going to have our own take on this) goatse and tubgirl are obscene. Nudity and sexuality are not obscene in my eyes so when I see something described as 'obscene' I expect it to be somewhat beyond the usual NSFW site.

Given that we *are* all going to have our own takes on this, is a single word (obscenity) really sufficient warning before linking to goatse? Even if it's not modified by "marginally NSFW" (which strengthens the mental link to nudity or partial nudity even more, at least in my mind), is it really unreasonable to ask for a bit more warning than that?

I mean, let's be honest here. Tryptophan-5ht deliberately avoided letting people know what his link was - that was the whole joke. So how can you act surprised when many of us didn't know what we were in for?

All we're asking for here is: don't trick us. Label these things explicitly, or at least strongly enough that we know what we're getting, so that those of us who wish to avoid such things can.
posted by gd779 at 8:29 PM on April 16, 2004

Maybe we should hire Tipper as a consultant.
posted by anathema at 8:41 PM on April 16, 2004

cedar should get a job organising pron collections.
posted by andrew cooke at 8:46 PM on April 16, 2004

This would be about the time where Tryptophan chimes in that it was actually a goatse-related link malfunction
posted by amberglow at 8:46 PM on April 16, 2004

Thank you, quarantine, for that wikipedia link.

All this time I thought actual goats were being molested.

(tubgirl I saw by accident years ago. Yuck.)
posted by konolia at 8:48 PM on April 16, 2004

Geez people. Welcome to the Internet.

Wasn't there supposed to be a Welcome Wagon or something? Where's my free toaster?
posted by y2karl at 9:00 PM on April 16, 2004

oh come on. I think it was worth the laugh.
posted by mathowie at 9:12 PM on April 16, 2004

nostrils don't turn any heads here. why? they are just holes in the body that everybody has.

the thing that seems to slip past most people is that all people have assholes too. you choose to be upset and offended by them.

letting a gaping anus get you riled up is silly and gives more power to that anus.

everytime you meta a moron for posting a gaping asshole picture, you give more impact to the next moron that posts it.
posted by bargle at 9:38 PM on April 16, 2004

I agree that the "marginally" was... misleading. But who knows what one person to the next is going to call NSFW so even "marginally NSFW" should be a pretty good warning. Then again, at 1024x768 I could not tell anything about the thumbnail anyway, so..
posted by bargle at 9:43 PM on April 16, 2004

The more of a commotion they make over Goatse and Tubgirl, the more you know theres something about it that excites them.

Your ability to consistently amaze me with your uncoordinated and failed attempts at making sense is both baffling and enticing. Please continue!

I agree with mr_crash_davis in that I would rather not see something of that nature for a borderline laugh, whatever others may think. That said, I'll reserve my antagonism for keyser's ridiculous comment.

I think it's amusing how overly sensitive people are to goatse and tubgirl.

Your condescending, holier-than-thou, looking-down-your-nose-at-the-community attitude has vaulted you to the top of my least-favourite-new-users-list, right beside the defunct ChristFollower. You are a disturbing trend I would like to see curbed and I hope at some point in the near future somebody on this site takes you to task as the poseur you are.

Just quonsin. Shakespeare rules!
posted by The God Complex at 10:36 PM on April 16, 2004

MetaFilter: Worst of the web since 1999.

Seriously, goatse is fucking gross. Since the FCC labels certain not nice words as obscenities that's what most people will think of, and the usual standard for 'marginally nsfw' is a half-exposed nipple.

As said already, the 'not wanting to ruin the joke (sic)' sentiment proves you were trying to trick people.

You get extra points as well for making the slashdot trolls *YAWN* with your originality.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:46 PM on April 16, 2004

After some consideration, I'd like to modify my statement. And, no, a joke isn't forthcoming.

Pretty much no imagery upsets or shocks me very much. I have to admit that this probably isn't normal—and what's normative, for whatever reason, is salient here. My sensibilities are not.

However, my sensibilities are that goatse and tubgirl are somewhat shocking but not that big of a deal and, honestly, the hysteria that they generate strikes me as odd. Or, more frankly, it strikes me as significant. Signifying what? I dunno. I can't help but believe the goatse reaction is at least partly, in many, homophobic. Tubgirl doesn't bother me very much because it looks very staged. (And since when does liquishit have the creamy consistency of homogenized chocolate milk? But I digress.)

Taking a step back from the discussion about sensibilities, it does seem to me that a reasonable, net-aware, native English speaking person would not assume that "marginally NSFW" would include goatse or tubgirl.

I'm sorry I touched a nerve and I realize that I probably did in this comment, too. It really isn't nice to armchair psychoanalyze people and speculate about their motivations and such, especially in this context. But I can't help it. People get so worked up about goatse and tubgirl. Have I mentioned that I find that strange?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:18 PM on April 16, 2004

Everyone here, YHBT.
posted by brownpau at 11:54 PM on April 16, 2004

MetaFilter: All people have assholes too.
posted by chrismear at 12:22 AM on April 17, 2004

I want to make it clear from the get-go that I don't think this is a big deal, but here's my two cents...

dejah420 and gd779 have hit the nail on the head from where I'm standing, saving me the trouble of contructing my own argument on the matter (so hey, thanks).

I'm a big kid and I can view a pic of someone's bottom without fainting, but as many others have mentioned above, 'mildly NSFW' means to me - nudity, animals mating, rude words in large letters and the like. If you're going to link to something a wee bit dodgy, fine, but a more accurate description would be nice. You can say 'it's just semantics' till you're blue in the face, but I think many of the posts above demonstrate that the link warning just didn't cut the mustard (or perhaps the cheese in this case).
posted by backOfYourMind at 1:56 AM on April 17, 2004

"Everyone here, YHBT."—brownpau

Am I the only person here who wishes that "troll" still meant what it used to mean in the glory days of Kibo? No?

Okay, fine. You kids just go back to whatever it was that you were doing. And pull your pants up.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:36 AM on April 17, 2004

In my job, a lot of the sites we do are......NSFW.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:10 AM on April 17, 2004

Wow, EB. I really don't get your suggested connection with homosexual or homophobic. That actually seems much more creepy to me than anything else... Basically, it seems that this guy (if real) is self-mutilating in a way that seems interesting to him. What does that have to do with homosexuality?
posted by taz at 4:17 AM on April 17, 2004

bargle:

letting a gaping anus get you riled up is silly and gives more power to that anus.

Then again, at 1024x768 I could not tell anything about the thumbnail anyway, so.


Ethereal Bligh:
Pretty much no imagery upsets or shocks me very much.

mathowie:
oh come on. I think it was worth the laugh.

taz:
your suggested connection with homosexual or homophobic. That actually seems much more creepy to me than anything else...

wow. how totally clueless. how totally missing the point. how totally SWSX-ish (as in "tight-knit", "cliquey", and probably as in "white" and "affluent".)

it is not about empowering assholes. it's all about the gaping assholes most people (but apparently not the posters) must kowtow to in order to receive a wage. they are already powerful enough.

it is not about what you personally find upsetting or worth a joke. it is all about what can and will be used against you in the event of an ambitious underling or a random hard drive seizure. (any entrepreneurial types smirking at this point needs to incorporate said image as part of the next client proposal.) it is not about you seeing "creepy connections with the homosexual or the homophobic". it is about the vast majority of people in the workday world who would unequivocally label goatse.cx guy to be "gay porn" whether it is or not.

it is all about NSFW. people may be universally stealing time from the employer by "browsing at work", but that's a far easier and less disastrous thing to deal with than "browsing at work for gay porn".

on an unrelated (hm. or related.) note, spell check suggests "waspish" for "SXSW-ish"
posted by quonsar at 4:50 AM on April 17, 2004

Okay, Q. Maybe you're not white, not cliquey and not affluent. (Is affluent something I would have more than about 50 euros in the bank to know about?), and maybe you have a much bigger clue than anyone else, but my personal clue would have been not to click on a NSFW link if I were at work and worried about possible repercussions.

As to how on-target the warning was, I agree with dejah. Also, I don't even know what SWSX is, so you should go ahead and call me just plain "WASPish", though I'm actually just WAS-ish.
posted by taz at 5:39 AM on April 17, 2004

quonsar posts serious, on-topic, sensible comment.

mathowie approves of goatse.

*brain seizes up, is colonized by bats*
posted by languagehat at 7:22 AM on April 17, 2004

> Am I the only person here who wishes that "troll" still meant what it used to mean in the glory days of Kibo?
OH please, I was invoking Godwin and smacking down flamewars when your 1200baud modem was still in diapers. In the snow! Without any shoes!

But seriously, this guy got you all to click on goatse simply by baiting you with "mildly NSFW" and an entertainment link. MeTa callout ensues, and manages to start a debate on what constitutes humor, "obscenity" and "mildly NFSW," and he even gets defended by the site admin for being "funny."

That's a pretty successfull troll in my book.

Fortunately I didn't even click on it when I saw it; I usually start from MeTa, and I haven't read a single thing by Tryptophan-5ht ever since he called Ayn Rand the "fallen Messiah."
posted by brownpau at 9:22 AM on April 17, 2004

Just in case this topic comes up, say, at my next job interview: How do you pronounce goatse, anyways? Is it 'goat-seh' or would you pronounce it 'goat-see'?
posted by horsewithnoname at 9:30 AM on April 17, 2004

But I would argue, again semantically, that the general meme of "obscenity' has come to suggest things which are titillating, rather than things which are disgusting.

I have to take exception to that. While some people may hold such a watered-down view of the term, I do NOT think that the general sense of the "obscene" is or should be equivalent to the "titillating." I would argue that "obscene" has a STRONG negative connotation, while "titillating," on the contrary, most often has a positive connotation. I do think the use of "marginally" was a poor choice here, but "obscene" should stand on its own regardless and be sufficient to warn off those with work-related concerns. The NSFW marker is to indicate about content that is, um, not safe for some workplaces, NOT content that might conceivably (or even probably) offend ones own personal sense of propriety. With that, you takes your chances, like the rest of us grown-ups.

The ironic part is that so much effort is expended to enable folks to circumvent websurfing rules at work by avoiding more detectable/egregious sins...sigh.
posted by rushmc at 9:47 AM on April 17, 2004

How do you pronounce goatse, anyways?

um. actually you don't, because his real name is goatse.cx, not goatse. the whole point, as with any other se.cx sites, is the reference to sex, in this case goat sex. why people persist in using the ludicrous, sloppy and meaningless shortening which destroys the bad pun - now there's one for AskMe!
posted by quonsar at 9:55 AM on April 17, 2004

Thanks q, I never knew that. And people say this is a waste of time.
posted by cedar at 10:27 AM on April 17, 2004

That's a pretty successfull troll in my book.

Was it even a troll, though? I can agree with your analysis, sure, but you're presuming T-5 didn't just think it was genuinely funny. I think you're seeing maliciousness that wasn't there.

I laughed when I saw it. crash obviously took exception. Different senses of humor at work, or different degrees of reaction to the Internet's favorite gaping pooper.
posted by cortex at 11:24 AM on April 17, 2004

Also:

I can't help but believe the goatse reaction is at least partly, in many, homophobic. Tubgirl doesn't bother me very much because it looks very staged.

Believe what you like. I believe the goatse.cx reaction is based on the sight of a stretch and yawning asshole -- which is not something most people come across in the course of their day. It's visually arresting, and it's some guy's ass.

If it were a similarly typical human with an unusual ass trick, but said human was female, I think you'd see an essentially identical reaction.

And tubgirl bothers people for pretty similar reasons -- here's somebody curled up in a tub shooting a stream of (apparently) diarrhea in an arc back toward herself.

I'm similarly pretty laid back about this stuff, but I don't think there's anything strange about people not being so. It's not fear of the male ass or fear of the concept of poop, it's that these images are intentionally (and pretty effectively) shocking to most folks.
posted by cortex at 11:32 AM on April 17, 2004

The ironic part is that so much effort is expended to enable folks to circumvent websurfing rules at work by avoiding more detectable/egregious sins...sigh.

Actually, at my workplace the rule is avoiding the egregious things. We're welcome to surf the web. We're not welcome to surf goatse, porn, etc.

Personally, though, my problem with this had nothing to do with whether it was safe for me to browse at work or not. The mildly NSFW told me well enough that it wasn't. It was also, however, not safe for me to browse at home. Or anywhere. Because I just really don't want to see that kind of disgusting crap. I have nothing against porn, even hardcore porn. But that sort of shit is just disgusting, and being tricked into viewing it is unplesant and certainly not an aspect of the best of the web.

I hate to be disagreeing with Matt on this, since it's his site and his call, but this sort of thing just shouldn't have a place on MeFi. I avoided both tubgirl and goatse for a very long time, but have ended up viewing them both from here in the last couple of weeks. An experience I definitely could have done without.
posted by jacquilynne at 12:11 PM on April 17, 2004

gape
posted by bargle at 12:30 PM on April 17, 2004

it is about the vast majority of people in the workday world who would unequivocally label goatse.cx guy to be "gay porn" whether it is or not.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with people here upset about a marginal NSFW label being labelled as homophobic, as near as I can tell.
posted by The God Complex at 12:37 PM on April 17, 2004

it is all about NSFW

which is why i said the marginally was misleading. but i would not have clicked on even a "marginally nsfw" link if i could get in trouble for viewing naughty things at work. anyway, after making my first post mocking t5, i decided that since i wasn't actually offended by it i didn't want to join the dogpile. i want t5 to stay around long enough to at least have a glorious metatalk meltdown, i think there is great potential in him.
posted by bargle at 12:41 PM on April 17, 2004

To be clear, I didn't click the link and don't plan on doing it, since the thread didn't interest me in the slightest. I'm just arguing about the principle itself (without much strength, I might add), because I've always thought "NSFW" was really more of a broad label, something also for people not at work that allows them to judge whether they should click the link.
posted by The God Complex at 1:01 PM on April 17, 2004

jacquilynne is much more eloquent than I am. She's right, too.
posted by gd779 at 1:23 PM on April 17, 2004

Goatse and tubgirl and all those other sites don't belong on MeFi. Regardless of one's sense of humor, or one's personal morals, there's just no reason to post it here. It's like the ultimate double post...we've all seen it before (if you haven't, count yourself lucky and watch where you click on teh intarweb), and it is certainly not the best of the web. What good reason is there for it ever touching the blue?
posted by lazaruslong at 2:09 PM on April 17, 2004

5
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:11 PM on April 17, 2004

4
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:11 PM on April 17, 2004

3
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:12 PM on April 17, 2004

2
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:12 PM on April 17, 2004

1
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:12 PM on April 17, 2004

BOOOM!
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:13 PM on April 17, 2004

boom*
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:15 PM on April 17, 2004

your first "BOOOM!" was a dud, Trypto. : >
posted by amberglow at 3:31 PM on April 17, 2004

wELL THAT WAS RATHER SAD.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:49 PM on April 17, 2004

But that sort of shit is just disgusting

Some people sincerely feel the same about pictures of people kissing. Why do you get to decide where the line gets drawn?
posted by rushmc at 4:55 PM on April 17, 2004

StileFilter
posted by inpHilltr8r at 5:35 PM on April 17, 2004

Rushmc, please tell me that you are trying to make a case for Goatse and tubgirl as not being disgusting.
posted by lazaruslong at 5:44 PM on April 17, 2004

Rushmc, please tell me that you are trying to make a case for Goatse and tubgirl as not being disgusting.

mr. rushmcgoatse and mrs. rushmctubgirl have a right to self-exhibition in ways that seem interesting to them!
posted by quonsar at 6:26 PM on April 17, 2004

This thread is funnier than the actual joke was.

I think he labelled it just fine. Just because some of us seem to have no clue of what "obscene" means doesn't really justify taking it out on Tryp.

If having "mildly NSFW" and "obscene" in the same sentence confused you, why didn't you wait to see what other people posted in the thread about the link before you clicked on it? That's like sticking your hand in a dog's mouth after his owner warns you it MIGHT bite you-- then getting pissed off when it does.

Take some personal responsibility, already.
posted by precocious at 6:37 PM on April 17, 2004

Stop posting goatse to MeFi already.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:07 PM on April 17, 2004

is it a real photo ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 8:10 PM on April 17, 2004

* <-- an asshole
posted by Hildago at 8:33 PM on April 17, 2004

maybe there should be NSFL (not safe for lunch)?
posted by bingo at 9:35 PM on April 17, 2004

From now on I propose we only use ASCII art versions of oscene photographs, ok?


***********************
** WARNING! ACHTUNG! **
***********************
** The following has **
** not been properly **
** certified as      **
** "Crash Davis"     **
** safe and should   **
** be avoided by     **
** younger viewers!  **
***********************

Example of ASCII ART goatse picture here.
posted by shepd at 1:08 AM on April 18, 2004

Rushmc, please tell me that you are trying to make a case for Goatse and tubgirl as not being disgusting.

Certainly, they meet MY definition of "disgusting" (although viewing them did not cause my poor brain to explode), but I am trying to make a case for there being no universal definition, since what disgusts a person is relative and subjective.
posted by rushmc at 9:35 AM on April 18, 2004

what languagehat said.
what jacquilynne said.

Q, when you have something really intelligent to say, it's a treat. Not that you're not highly entertaining at other times. You just want to keep us off guard, right?

Tryptophan-5ht - the post is basically, Ha, ha, made you look at goatse.cx. In what way is this even remotely "the best of the web?" I'd be happy to see a ban on shock-pix. Meanwhile, anybody got any good posts?
posted by theora55 at 11:42 AM on April 18, 2004

We need more goatse.cx stories is what we need.
posted by homunculus at 12:41 PM on April 18, 2004

Don't be afraid to click on homunculus's link, folks -- it's funny!
Note: a gaping anus is mentioned but not shown, so it's no worse than this thread.
posted by languagehat at 1:52 PM on April 18, 2004

re: 'marginally NSFW'

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
- Humpty Dumpty
posted by mischief at 2:42 PM on April 18, 2004

here you go ; >
posted by amberglow at 2:49 PM on April 18, 2004

theora55 :he post is basically, Ha, ha, made you look at goatse.cx

It was a joke!
didnt you see the linked page?
the search engine thought goatse looked like Ben Afleck, John Goodman, or Alec Baldwin.
see?
And by linking on the word accurate, Tryptophan-5ht was implying that he also thought that that comparison was accurate.

Im running at 1600x1200 resolution, so that thumbnail was pretty small, anyways I thought it was funny.
posted by Iax at 3:21 PM on April 18, 2004

"I wasn't trying to trick you all into looking at goatse. The crux of the joke was that ben affleck turned up."
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 5:16 PM on April 18, 2004

In that case, I don't get the joke.
posted by dg at 6:06 PM on April 18, 2004

Goatse is a smuggler
posted by clavdivs at 6:40 PM on April 18, 2004

Has Matt asked us: no posting Goatse? Thought he had more than once.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:11 AM on April 19, 2004

I thought it was funny. Lighten up, Francis.
posted by Samsonov14 at 11:05 PM on April 20, 2004